Management of Crop Residues for Improving Input Use Efficiency And

sustainability

Review Management of Crop Residues for Improving Input Use Efficiency and Agricultural Sustainability

Sukamal Sarkar 1,2 , Milan Skalicky 3 , Akbar Hossain 4,* , Marian Brestic 3,5 , Saikat Saha 6 , Sourav Garai 1 , Krishnendu Ray 7 and Koushik Brahmachari 1

1 Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia 741252, West Bengal, India; [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (S.G.); [email protected] (K.B.) 2 Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bhagwangola-II Block, Directorate of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, Murshidabad 742135, West Bengal, India 3 Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic; [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (M.B.) 4 Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute, Dinajpur 5200, Bangladesh 5 Department of Plant Physiology, Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia 6 Nadia Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Gayeshpur, Nadia 741252, West Bengal, India; [email protected] 7 Sasya Shyamala Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute, Arapanch, Sonarpur 741252, West Bengal, India; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]



Received: 5 November 2020; Accepted: 21 November 2020; Published: 24 November 2020


Abstract: Crop residues, the byproduct of crop production, are valuable natural resources that can be managed to maximize different input use efficiencies. Crop residue management is a well-known and widely accepted practice, and is a key component of conservation agriculture. The rapid shift from conventional agriculture to input-intensive modern agricultural practices often leads to an increase in the production of crop residues. Growing more food for an ever-increasing population brings the chance of fast residue generation. Ecosystem services from crop residues improve soil health status and supplement necessary elements in plants. However, this is just one side of the shield. Indecorous crop residue management, including in-situ residue burning, often causes serious environmental hazards. This happens to be one of the most serious environmental hazard issues witnessed by the agricultural sector. Moreover, improper management of these residues often restrains them from imparting their beneficial effects. In this paper, we have reviewed all recent findings to understand and summarize the different aspects of crop residue management, like the impact of the residues on crop and soil health, natural resource recycling, and strategies related to residue retention in farming systems, which are linked to the environment and ecology. This comprehensive review paper may be helpful for different stakeholders to formulate suitable residue management techniques that will fit well under existing farming system practices without compromising the systems’ productivity and environmental sustainability.

Keywords: residue management; soil degradation; GHGs; resource use efficiency

1. Introduction Agriculture and associated sectors, which are the mainstay of economies in many developing and undeveloped countries, covering almost 82% of the world’s population directly or indirectly, need to

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808; doi:10.3390/su12239808 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 2 of 24 be sustainable for bringing about greater prosperity of human beings. This requires the introduction, adoption, and development of improved production technologies [1]. The technologies conserving resources in agriculture are the most valuable keys to ensure sustainability in food production. The adoption of such input-intensive agricultural practices often leads to serious depletion of soil nutrients. The use of modern heavy farm implements like the combine harvester, rotavator, and seed cum fertilizer drill is increasing day by day. The use of the seed cum fertilizer drill and combine harvester in the rice–wheat system of the Indian subcontinent has increased manyfold in the last few years [2,3]. The production of crop residue in modern input-intensive agricultural practices was also linearly increased. Farmers often burn these crop residues in-situ, which leads to serious environmental impacts [4–6]. Burning of crop residues has a serious negative impact on human health as well as environmental consequences. It was reported that in-situ crop residue burning in Asian countries accounted for more than one-third of total biomass burning [5]. The particulates (PM) released from such burning, like PM10, PM2.5, and greenhouse gases (GHGs), are also responsible for environmental pollution [5,7]. Crop residue management is a well-known and widely accepted practice for controlling various soil physical, chemical, and biological functions. Crop residues incorporate a large number of nutrients in the soil for crop production and affect soil water movement, runoff, and infiltration. In a conservation agriculture (CA) system, successful management of crop residues is an integral part, and the maximum benefit of CA can only be achieved with in-situ management [8]. However, decomposition of crop residues has both positive and negative impacts on crop production. The role of the researcher is central in employing the positive effects of crop residue management practices and improving positive impact on the environment [9]. Soil management with crop residues covers a wide range of aspects, like residue decomposition, soil erosion control, nutrient recycling and availability to plants, control of weed pests, and various conservation practices related to tillage for maximizing crop yields [10]. The annual cycling of plant nutrients is important in the plant–soil ecosystem in order to maintain a productive agricultural system and to facilitate better nutrient mobilization within the system [11]. It is reported that soil, air, and water, which have tremendous interaction with plants, release various essential inorganic nutrient elements for plant growth [7]. Apart from this, carbon-enriched crop residues serve as the main food source for soil microorganisms and initiate the biological nutrient cycling framework. Throughout microbial decomposition of crop residues, different chemicals are released in soil and can be properly utilized by plants and other living organisms [2]. Plant availability of NPK nutrients from crop residues mostly depends on different soil physical, chemical, and biological processes. Integrated management with fertilization and the amount of crop residue remaining for incorporation in the crop field determine the degree of cycling and plant availability of nutrients from crop residues. Management of crop residues for a better C sequestration and the amount and site of crop residue application coupled with optimum use of N fertilizer are necessary for promoting soil organic matter [12,13]. In the present review, we have focused on the different aspects of crop residue management, like the impacts of residues, utilization of natural resources, and strategies to be formulated for better residue management in farming systems, which are largely related to the present-day environmental issues. Efficient crop residue management strategies for sustainable crop residue management without compromising the crop yield must be framed for maximizing the input use efficiency for food and environmental security.

2. Intensive Agriculture and Crop Residues: Present Status The modern intensive agricultural system depends on the heavy application of external inputs. Farmers who practice such modern input-intensive agricultural practices usually follow intensive crop rotation practices, and the lands remain fallow during a crop season in a cropping year [14]. The adoption of intensive agricultural practices coupled with high-yielding varieties and modern irrigation facilities often leads to micronutrient deficiencies and decreased soil fertility. It has been reported that a steady Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 3 of 24

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 24 shift from the use of different organic manures and traditional plant nutrient elements (farmyard promisingmanure, composts, technique etc.) to resolve instead ofthis chemical problem fertilizers [15]. In addition, is considered these as modern a most promising intensive techniqueagricultural to practicesresolve this often problem cause [15 severe]. In addition, undermining these modernof micron intensiveutrient agricultural reservoirs practicesin soil, resulting often cause in severetheir deficienciesundermining in ofmany micronutrient areas across reservoirs the country. in soil, resulting in their deficiencies in many areas across the country.Crop residue management usually refers to maintaining the soil surface cover and protecting the soilCrop from residue nutrient management losses as well usually as erosion. refers In to addition, maintaining it helps thesoil in improving surface cover different and protecting physical, chemical,the soil from and nutrient biological losses processes as well within as erosion. soil In[16]. addition, It protects it helps soil in from improving wind and different rain physical,erosion, conserveschemical, andsoil biologicalmoisture, processesand improves within infiltration soil [16]. It and protects aeration soil from within wind the and soil rain profile. erosion, Proper conserves crop residuesoil moisture, management and improves helps in addi infiltrationng soil organic and aeration matter within and provid the soiles food profile. for soil Proper micro-organisms crop residue [17].management Soil, water, helps air, in and adding sunlight soil organicare considered matter and to be provides the major food resources for soil micro-organisms that sustain food [17 supply]. Soil, andwater, maintain air, and sunlightglobal ecosystems. are considered Crop to beproduction the major resourcesis the utmost thatsustain manipulation food supply of these and maintainnatural resources,global ecosystems. especially Crop the soil production [18]. Quality is the soil, utmost enriched manipulation with organic of these matter, natural boosts resources, crop production. especially Incorporationthe soil [18]. Qualityof crop residues soil, enriched improves with soil organic organic matter, matter boosts [19]. After crop harvesting production. the Incorporation economic parts of ofcrop field residues crops, residues, improves i.e., soil stem organic, leaves, matter husks, [19]. etc., After play harvesting decisive roles the economic in improving parts soil of field quality crops, as wellresidues, as addressing i.e., stem, leaves,several husks, environmental etc., play decisive issues. rolesThese in improvingcrop residues soil qualitygenerally as wellact as as addressinga primary contributorseveral environmental to elemental issues. carbon These in soil crop [20]. residues Crop residues generally are act usually as a primary consid contributorered as waste to elemental material incarbon terms in soilof their [20]. Cropeconomic residues importance. are usually However, considered crop as waste residues material offer in a terms variety of their of economicpotential mechanismsimportance. for However, nutrient crop recycling, residues especially offer a variety carbon of sequestration potential mechanisms in soil [21]. for nutrientA report recycling,on crop residuesespecially by carbon the Ministry sequestration of New and in soil Renewable [21]. A reportEnergy on reported crop residues that India by produces the Ministry 500 ofMt New (million and tons)Renewable of crop Energy residues reported (Figure that 1) every India year produces [22]. 500A big Mt share (million of residues tons) of are crop used residues for domestic (Figure1 as) every well asyear industrial [22]. A bigpurposes. share ofApart residues from are those, used a forhuge domestic portion as is well retained as industrial in the field purposes. and burned Apart every from year,those, as a recorded huge portion in different is retained research in the articles. field and It is burned also interesting every year, that as the recorded residue in portion different burned research in Indiaarticles. as Itwaste is also material interesting is approximately that the residue the portion amou burnednt of crop in India residues as waste jointly material produced is approximately by other countriesthe amount in the of crop same residues region. jointly produced by other countries in the same region.

600

500

400

300

Million tons/year 200

100

0 India Bangladesh Indonesia Myanmar

Figure 1. Agricultural waste generation in India compared to other select nations (source: modified Figure 1. Agricultural waste generation in India compared to other select nations (source: modified from National Policy for Management of Crop Residues (NPMCR) [22]). from National Policy for Management of Crop Residues (NPMCR) [22]). 3. Environmental Impacts from Inefficient Use of Crop Residues 3. Environmental Impacts from Inefficient Use of Crop Residues Modern intensive agricultural practices rely on the high-yielding and hybrid cultivars of food crops,Modern and very intensive often, theseagricultural cultivars practices require rely a large on the dose high-yielding of modern synthetic and hybrid inputs cultivars like chemical of food crops,fertilizers and andvery pesticides often, these [23 cultivars]. However, require the impacta large dose of indiscriminate of modern synthetic use of these inputs chemical like chemical inputs fertilizers and pesticides [23]. However, the impact of indiscriminate use of these chemical inputs without considering the future and negative impacts on the environment is starting to show up, and yields of crops have flattened despite using larger doses of fertilizers. Environmental pollution is Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 4 of 24

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24

Sustainabilitywithout considering2020, 12, x FOR PEER the future REVIEW and negative impacts on the environment is starting to show4 of 24 up, occurring at an alarming rate. With the increasing cost of cultivation in conventional agricultural and yields of crops have flattened despite using larger doses of fertilizers. Environmental pollution practices and no appreciable additional benefits in income, farmers are finding it extremely difficult occurringis occurring at an at alarming an alarming rate. rate. With With the theincreasing increasing cost cost of cultivation of cultivation in conventional in conventional agricultural agricultural to earn their livelihood. The situation would further deteriorate with gradual fragmentation of practicespractices and and no no appreciable appreciable additional additional benefits benefits in in income, income, farmers farmers are are finding finding it itextremely extremely difficult difficult to holdings. To improve the socioeconomic standards of the farmers in the modern day and to produce toearn earn their their livelihood. livelihood. The The situation situation would would further further deteriorate deteriorate with with gradual gradual fragmentation fragmentation of holdings. of crops at a lower cost with improved crop productivity and soil health, it is essential to shift the holdings.To improve To improve the socioeconomic the socioeconomic standards standards of the farmers of the farmers in the modernin the modern day and day to and produce to produce crops at a modern farming practices to conservation agriculture for sustainable growth [24]. Intensive cropslower at cost a lower with improvedcost with improved crop productivity crop producti and soilvity health, and soil it is health, essential it tois shiftessential the modernto shift farmingthe modernagricultural farming practices practices often to aggravateconservation soil andagricu waterlture erosion for sustainable and make thegrowth system [24]. a vulnerable Intensive one, practicesleading toto conservationdegradation of agriculture precious natural for sustainable resources. On-site growth burning [24]. Intensive of crop residues agricultural usually practices results agriculturaloften aggravate practices soil often and water aggravate erosion soil and and make water the erosion system and a vulnerablemake the system one, leading a vulnerable to degradation one, leadingin of to CH degradation4 and N2O ofgases precious produced natural by resources.the ignition On-site of crop burning residues of andcrop the residues emission usually of GHGs results from ofagricultural precious natural crop resources.residue burning. On-site Amongst burning the of crop different residues crops, usually globally, results maize in of contributes CH4 and Nthe2O in of CH4 and N2O gases produced by the ignition of crop residues and the emission of GHGs from gases produced by the ignition of crop residues and the emission of GHGs from agricultural crop agriculturalhighest emissionscrop residue (CO 2burning. equivalent—gigagram) Amongst the differentthrough burningcrops, globally, of crop residues,maize contributes followed bythe rice, residuewheat, burning. and sugarcane Amongst (Figure the di 2).fferent Amongst crops, the globally, different maize countries, contributes the highest the highest GHG emissions (CO (CO22 highest emissions (CO2 equivalent—gigagram) through burning of crop residues, followed by rice, equivalent—gigagram)equivalent—gigagram) through through burning the burning of crop of crop residues, residues followed were emitted by rice, by wheat, China, and followed sugarcane by wheat, and sugarcane (Figure 2). Amongst the different countries, the highest GHG emissions (CO2 (Figure2). Amongst the di fferent countries, the highest GHG emissions (CO equivalent—gigagram) equivalent—gigagram)India, the USA, and throughthe USSR the (Figure burning 3). of crop residues were emitted by2 China, followed by through the burning of crop residues were emitted by China, followed by India, the USA, and the India, the USA, and the USSR (Figure 3). USSR (Figure3).

Figure 2. Emissions (CO2 equivalent—gigagram) from the burning of crop residues (source: Food and FigureAgriculture 2. Emissions Organization (CO2 equivalent—gigagram) (FAO)) [25]). from the burning of crop residues (source: Food and Figure 2. Emissions (CO2 equivalent—gigagram) from the burning of crop residues (source: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)) [25]). Agriculture Organization (FAO)) [25]).

Figure 3. Figure Top3. Top 10 emitting10 emitting (CO 2(COequivalent—gigagram)2 equivalent—gigagram) countries countries according according to burning to burning of crop residuesof crop (source:residues Food (source: and Agriculture Food and Agriculture Organization Organization (FAO)) [25 (FAO))]). [25]). Figure 3. Top 10 emitting (CO2 equivalent—gigagram) countries according to burning of crop residues (source: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)) [25]). Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 5 of 24

Crop residues offer multiple environmental services when retained in field conditions after harvest. A list of contributions has been recorded in different research articles; e.g., improving soil physical properties and contributing to soil organic carbon (SOC) formation [11–13]. Very often, crop residues are considered as waste materials, but they perform as a valuable resource when returned to the soil, and they deliver numerous ecosystem services to the environment [4]. In addition, crop residues often reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and include a positive impact on the environment [10]. In addition, the World Energy Council has reported other utilities of crop residues for domestic (cattle feed purpose) and industrial purposes [26]. Due to a rise in population and growing demand for food, crop production followed by management of crop residues has been increased globally. The large contribution of crop residues as a natural resource for developing soil stability and soil fertility is portrayed in different research articles. In addition, good management practices for crop residues increase irrigation efficiency and control soil erosion to a large extent. However, the large-scale implications of management practices with crop residues limit their use due to intensive cultivation practices in many areas across the globe.

4. Management of Crop Residues for Improving Input Use Efficiencies The implementation of sustainable crop residue management practices is one of the cleaner crop production options [27]. Indiscriminate burning of the crop residues has a serious impact on soil health, organic matter content, and plant micro- and macronutrients, as well as on microbial population [27,28]. Sustainable management of crop residues to lessen the ill impact on the environment as well as on human beings is a serious challenge for scientists and policymakers. Farmers are often reluctant to adopt any remedial measures for sensible management of crop residues because these practices do not directly increase the farm income. So, the selection of suitable crop residue management strategies that are eco-friendly but also increase the farm income is of the utmost importance. In practical field conditions, numbers of potential crop residue management technologies like conservation tillage, cycling of nutrients, soil conversation practices, zero-tillage and residue mulching, use in animal feed, and preparation of vermicompost are being used in different parts of the world [27,29–33]. Proper crop residue management has a positive impact on improving input use efficiencies by regulating different soil biochemical properties.

4.1. Improving Soil Physical Properties Incorporation of leguminous crop resides has been shown to improve the soil physical properties, such as water-holding capacity, soil permeability, etc. Inclusion of leguminous crop residues also increases crop growth and productivity by enhancing the availability of nutrients for the root zone of the crops [34]. Use of heavy machinery and farm implements like planters, zero-tillage implements, reapers, and combine harvesters is very common in modern input-intensive agriculture, and indiscriminate use of these heavy pieces of machinery often leads to compacting the soil and hampering the soil physical properties, like infiltration rate, airflow, and water-holding capacity [35]. Carlesso et al. [35] reported that the application of crop residues obtained from ryegrass and straw residues as well as mixed litter can significantly improve the soil porosity and water-holding capacity, and can ultimately make the soil more productive. Application of crop residues along with conservation tillage was reported to improve the soil aggregate and carbon storage in rice-based cropping systems [36].

4.2. Improving Soil Chemical Properties Sustainable management of crop resides can efficiently improve the soil chemical properties, like pH, electrical conductivity, and cation exchange capacity (CEC), as well as the transformation of different primary and secondary plant nutrients. The soil carbon pool (both total and labile pool) has a positive correlation with the application of crop residue. It is reported that application of wheat residue 1 1 mulching at a rate of 10 Mg ha− along with the application of 75 kg N ha− can significantly increase the total and labile carbon pool of an irrigated maize production system [37]. Adoption of conservation Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 6 of 24 tillage in a rice-maize cropping system with residue management can be effective for improvement of system productivity, K use efficiency, and apparent K balance [38]. Residue incorporation is also helpful for recycling of soil available K by up to 15%, as well as, thereby, the demand for external supply of K [38]. Smitha et al. [34] reported that application of cluster bean crop residue before transplanting of sacred basil (Ocimum sanctum Linn) significantly improved the SOC and availability of soil macronutrients.

4.3. Improving Soil Microbial Activity It has been reported that proper retention of crop residues has a significant impact on the regulation of the soil microbial biomass. The enhanced microbial activity in the top layer of soil by application of crop residue mulching was reported by Samui et al. [39] and Mondal et al. [3], and these might be due to the alteration of plant–soil micro-climate, increased water and nutrient availability, and regulation of soil temperature. Comparable findings were observed by Chatterjee et al. [37], and they opined that soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) significantly increased through application of wheat crop residue. Incorporation of residues of leguminous crops like cluster bean before sowing the next crop was reported to increase the soil microbial biomass and dehydrogenase activity (DHA) as compared to the control (with the application of crop residue) treatment [34]. Residue retention under CA has also been reported as beneficial for the reduction of soil nematode population in a wheat–soybean cropping system [40].

4.4. Improving Soil Productivity Judicious crop residue management is very helpful for maintaining the soil productivity and recycling of soil nutrients [41]. Rusinamhodzi et al. [41] reported that successful management of crop residue was not only beneficial for the improvement of soil productivity and nutritional status, but also helps to improve the overall health status of the farm animals. Long-term application of crop residues along with conservation tillage was reported to boost the soil productivity, C-pool, and earthworm population [42,43].

5. Crop Residues Improve the Fertility and Productivity of Soil Soil fertility is the inherent capacity of soil to sustain a satisfactory supply of nutrients for plants, and can be determined through chemical analysis of soil. However, soil productivity is the integrated result of soil fertility and management factors in field conditions, and can be assessed from crop yield. Soil fertility is well connected with the soil physical, chemical, and biological properties naturally linked with soil organic matter stock. Recently, more emphasis has been given to healthy food production, maintaining long-term soil fertility, and environmental sustainability, along with natural resource conservation and more productivity through appropriate soil and land management, residue recycling, precision technology, and the supply of plant nutrients more from organic sources instead of inorganic chemicals [44]. Crop residue is gaining importance in global agriculture, and is considered as an excellent source of organic matter that helps to improve C stock in soil, as well as water conservation, nutrient recycling, and soil qualities, and decreases the trends of residue burning and the consequent environmental hazards upon retention (Figure4)[ 45]. Most of the total amount of crop residue production comes from cereals (74%), followed by sugar crops (10%), legumes (8%), tubers (5%), and oilseeds (3%) [12]. In addition to C, crop residue contains several mineral nutrients depending on the crop species and soil fertility status [12]. However, it is very difficult to determine how many nutrients will be available to the crops at the time of crop residue incorporation, as it has been well established that, initially, crop residues immobilize the available soil N as a consequence of the high C:N ratio [46]. However, in the long term, this practice is very effective for nutrient availability for subsequent crops along with high-quality organic matter generation, and it facilitates better food crop production [10]. The cultivation of legumes generates the most residues after cereals [47]. Rather than quantity, residues Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 7 of 24 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24 quantity,from legumes residues are from considered legumes as are good-quality considered residues, as good-quality and contribute residues, an and extensive contribute amount an extensive of soil amountC for a long of soil duration C for a long [48]. dura A comprehensivetion [48]. A comprehensive assessment of assessment crop residue of crop application residue in application agricultural in practicesagricultural concerning practices soilconcerning fertility andsoil productivityfertility and productivity is discussed below:is discussed below:

Figure 4. Advantages of crop residue retention for improving soil fertility. Figure 4. Advantages of crop residue retention for improving soil fertility.

5.1. Crop Crop Residue Management for Soil Organic Matter Incorporation of of crop crop residues residues into into soil soil significan significantlytly changes changes the labile the labile pool of pool soil oforganic soil organic matter [49].matter It [is49 reported]. It is reported that contin that continuousuous residue residue incorporation incorporation for three for threeyears years significantly significantly increases increases the lightthe light carbon carbon fraction fraction in the in thesoil, soil, which which has hasa great a great contribution contribution to total to total soil soilorganic organic carbon carbon [50]. [50 In]. long-termIn long-term practices, practices, the the changes changes in intotal total organic organic carbon carbon are are the the result result of of changes changes in in heavy-fraction −33 carbon ((>1.6>1.6 g g cm cm−) )depending depending on on residue residue management management practices practices [49]. [49]. Intensive Intensive agricultural agricultural practices practices facilitate thethe continuouscontinuous loss loss of of organic organic matter, matter, with with its its detrimental detrimental eff ecteffect on globalon global carbon carbon balance balance and andsoil quality.soil quality. The legume-based The legume-based residue residue incorporation incorporation ensures ensures huge biomass huge biomass production production and confirms and confirmsthe net gain the ofnet soil gain carbon of soil as carbon compared as compared to cereals to [ 51cereals]. Legume [51]. Legume stubbles stubbles contain contain 49% higher 49% carbonhigher carbonand 133% and higher 133% N, higher and they N, addand 60%they more add SOC60% comparedmore SOC to compared control plots to (nocontrol residue plots incorporation) (no residue incorporation)beyond 30 cm beyond soil depth. 30 cm However, soil depth. the However, green manuring the green of manuring legumes of has legumes a small has impact a small on impact soil C onstorage soil C due storage to the due narrow to the C:Nnarrow ratio C:N (12–13:1) ratio (12–13: and the1) and lower the lignin lower content lignin content (49); this (49); is onethis ofis one the ofreasons the reasons for the for quick the quick decomposition decomposition of the of residues. the residues. Residue Residue retention retention of sunnof sunn hemp hemp resulted resulted in in0.92% 0.92% more more SOC SOC and and 0.64% 0.64% less less soil soil inorganic inorganic carbon carbon (SIC) (SIC) compared compared toto controlcontrol plotsplots (no residue incorporation) [49]. [49]. The The ability ability to to capture capture atmosphe atmosphericric N and subsequently store it in the soil would have resulted in a low C:N ratio in its residue, accelerating the N availability, which is required for rapid residue conversion from a C pool into aa particulateparticulate CC fraction.fraction. This change in soil organic C content varies with different different regions due to the variationsvariations of edaphic and climatic factors, as well as the residue management practices. For For example, example, a approximatelypproximately one one or or two decades are required to move the soil C content content to to a a new new equilibrium equilibrium with with good good residue residue management management in in Europe Europe and and America, America, whereas in Australia and Asia, about twotwo decadesdecades areare requiredrequired toto reachreach thethe soilsoil CC levellevel [[10].10].

5.2. Effects of Crop Residues on Soil Nutrient Status and Its Availability The nutrient content in crop residues is not readily available to plants initially after incorporation, as they are organically bound and need to be mineralized to turn into the available form [52]. After incorporation, a range of soil microorganisms colonize the residues, and Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 8 of 24

5.2. Effects of Crop Residues on Soil Nutrient Status and Its Availability The nutrient content in crop residues is not readily available to plants initially after incorporation, as they are organically bound and need to be mineralized to turn into the available form [52]. After incorporation, a range of soil microorganisms colonize the residues, and decomposition and subsequent mineralization take place; thereby, the crop residues are converted into simple monomers that are further physically, chemically, and biologically assimilated and, ultimately, converted into organic matter [53]. Moreover, some nutrients in crop residues are present in the soluble inorganic form, + 2 such as K and SO4 −, or are associated with mineralizable organic constituents, e.g., protein-bound S or phosphate ester [52]. The advantage of crop residue incorporation is that the soil microorganisms temporarily immobilize the nutrients that are released into the soil from residues and conserve the nutrients as slowly available forms; therefore, plants cannot take up all of the nutrients at one time, but the nutrients may become available throughout the crop’s life or in the subsequent crop. This accelerates the nutrient use efficiency and prevents nutrient losses through leaching or volatilization. The remarkable increase in nutrient use efficiency because of residue retention was observed by Pituello et al. [54] and Piccoli et al. [55]. The nutrient distribution is significantly increased by repeated residue decomposition, and previous researchers established the greater organic and inorganic phosphorus accumulation in the soil surface with the practice of conservation tillage compared to conventional tillage [56]. It has been predicted that higher organic matter accumulation in conservation practice may enhance the P content in available form by saturating P adsorption sites on soil colloids. A similar result was also observed in the case of N availability [57]. A significant difference is observed regarding soil nutrient losses when crop residues are left on the soil surface as compared to clean tillage practices. Additionally, they moderate soil temperature, water content, and infiltration rate [58]. Residues retained in soil surface minimize the soil erosion and thus reduce the surface nutrient losses [12]. In contrast, residues with a high decomposition rate may increase the N losses through leaching and denitrification, or sometimes through heavy uptake of N by weeds. A high level of total K is in residues; thereby, residue removal from fields increases the chance of K deficiency in soil [59]. Interestingly, the organic structure of plant tissues does not contain K; thus, the release of K does not depend on residue decomposition. Rainwater or irrigation may wash out the K from the residues, and if there is no crop demand, this nutrient may be lost from the soil differently. This reflects the importance of residue management with consideration of the time of nutrient release and crop demand. The decomposition and release of nutrients depend on the crop residue quality, especially the presence of N, lignin, and polyphenol, and may influence the dynamics of decomposition [59]. The residues generated from legume crops have a high level of N in the leaves and facilitate rapid mineralization, while crop residues from cereals with high C:N ratios may necessitate extra nitrogenous fertilizer to mitigate the demand for microbial N for decomposition [49].

5.3. Effects of Crop Residues on Soil Productivity Soil productivity is the comprehensive result of soil fertility and agronomic management, and it is determined by calculating the yield from the unit area. The influence of crop resides on yield is related with overall fertility dimensions, such as soil physical, chemical, and biological properties [60]. Previously, it has been well documented that crop yield always positively correlates with soil organic matter content [61] and residue retention brings up soil organic matter storage. Crop residues mostly influence the productivity in cereals compared to other crops [62]. It has been predicted that more residues add additional soil C and improve the soil properties in terms of favorable temperature, water retention, microbial activities, and nutrient mobilization [63]. Piccoli et al. [55] established that, as a source of organic matter, incorporation of crop residues resulted in 12% and 16% higher yield in maize and sugar beet, respectively, than other sources. However, Hijbeek et al. [61] observed a maize yield increase of only 4% with residue retention. Furthermore, Mandal et al. [64] observed a 12.3% yield Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 9 of 24 increase in wheat when straw was left over on the field. Long-term rice residue incorporation (13 years) resulted in 53.25% and 34.89% higher yield in wheat as compared to residue removal and residue burning, respectively. They also reported a similar trend in the case of maize, and concluded that overall soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, particularly the increase in the soil organic matter, improved significantly. Improved C stock and microbial activities were major reasons behind this greater soil productivity.

6. Crop Residue Management Decreases Soil Degradation It is estimated that, on average, commonly grown tropical crops like rice, wheat, maize, etc. contain 40% C, 0.8% N, 0.1% P, and 1.3% K, and provide food and shelter for beneficial soil microbes [65]. In addition, removal of crop residues for cattle feed or other industrial purposes increases nutrient removal from croplands and harms soil with multiple adverse impacts, ranging from erosion and degradation of soil to hampering soil, air, and water quality. Thus, the leftovers of crop residues after a harvest can successfully conserve the resources in the soil and sustain the productivity.

6.1. Erosion Efficient utilization of residues is reported to reduce runoff, sediment transport or losses, and water conservation [65]. It is reported that application of residue mulching can reduce the extent of soil loss by up to 43 times as compared to bared land. Mulching also helps to reduce the runoff, nutrient loss, and sediment present in the runoff water. It has also been reported that a maximum ground cover with crop residue can reduce the topsoil losses to an extent of 30%. Legumes are the most potent option as a cover crop, as they add atmospheric nitrogen symbiotically and, thus, they can improve the soil health. Application of crop residues affects runoff and sediment transport and conserves water. As plant density and residue mulching increase, the potential for runoff decreases [66]. Soil erosion and removal of the top fertile layer of soil largely depend upon the selection of the cropping system. Monocropping with erosion-permitting crops accelerated soil and water loss year after year. In an experiment [67], it was reported that retention of soybean residue can reduce the soil loss by 50% as compared to soil with no residue retention. Conservation tillage and crop residue management are also reported to be effective against soil loss in wheat-based cropping systems in Ethiopia [65].

6.2. Salinity While experimenting to judge the effect of straw mulching on zero-tillage potato in the coastal saline zone of West Bengal, India, Brahmachari et al. [32] reported that salinity development in rice-fallow fields was significantly faster than in a zero-tilled–mulched field (Figure5). Surface mulching shows an important and positive impact on the control of soil salinity through reduction of evapotranspiration. Fan et al. [68] reported that the soil salinity level (0.44%) was decreased to 0.07% after straw mulching for two years. Yang et al. [69] also reported that, in the mulched condition, the salinity level in the soil surface layer was lower compared to the control conditions (no mulch). Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 10 of 24 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

ZT Pl ots Ri ce- Fall ow

Figure 5. Comparison of soil salinity between zero-tilled–mulched potato fields (ZT Plots) and adjacent rice-fallowFigure 5. Comparison fields (rice-fallow) of soil (verticalsalinity barsbetween indicate zero-tilled–mulched the standard deviation potato offields the mean)(ZT Plots) (source: and modifiedadjacent fromrice-fallow Brahmachari fields (rice-fallow) et al. [32]). (vertical bars indicate the standard deviation of the mean) (source: modified from Brahmachari et al. [32]). 6.3. Buffering Capacity 6.3. Buffering Capacity Soil buffering capacity, or the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil, is to keep the base-forming cationsSoil available buffering for capacity, exchange or with the thecation soil exchange solution [ 67capacity]. The CEC(CEC) is oftenof the considered soil, is to keep as an the effective base- indicatorforming cations of soil available fertility. Asfor soilexchange organic with matter the soil (SOM) solution content [67]. is The directly CEC is proportional often considered to the as soil an residueeffective incorporation, indicator of soil soil fertility. pH-dependent As soil CECorganic also matter increases (SOM) with content the residue is directly retention. proportional In a long-term to the study,soil residue Govaerts incorporation, et al. [70] reported soil pH-dependent that continuous CEC incorporation also increases of crop with residue the residue might beretention. effective In for a increasinglong-term thestudy, CEC Govaerts of the topsoil et al. [70] layer. reported that continuous incorporation of crop residue might be effective for increasing the CEC of the topsoil layer. 6.4. Decrease in Soil Aridity 6.4. DecreaseSoil moisture in Soil is Aridity considered as the key element that governs nutrient availability, crop growth, and development.Soil moisture Surfaceis considered residue as retentionthe key element is very beneficialthat governs for nutrient rainfed andavailability, dryland crop areas growth, due to itsand ability development. to conserve Surface the soilresidue moisture. retention Residue is very mulching beneficial is for considered rainfed and as dryland an efficient areas method due to ofits manipulatingability to conserve the crop-growing the soil moisture. environment Residue for boostingmulching crop is considered yield and improving as an efficient the quality method of the of productmanipulating by controlling the crop-gro soil temperature,wing environment retaining for soil boosting moisture, crop and yield reducing and improving soil evaporation the quality [32,71 of]. Increasedthe product mulch by controlling coverage reducessoil temperature, splash erosion retaining significantly soil moisture, with and increasing reducing ground soil evaporation coverage. Generally,[32,71]. Increased the mulching mulch treatments coverage storereduces higher splash soil moistureerosion significantly compared to with the untreated increasing soil ground (bare soil)coverage. [72,73 ].Generally, In an experiment the mulching conducted treatments in the store coastal higher saline soil zone moisture of west compared Bengal with to the zero-tillage untreated strawsoil (bare mulching soil) [72,73]. technology In an experiment for potato cultivation, conducted in Brahmachari the coastal saline et al. [zone32] reported of west Bengal that the with periodic zero- moisturetillage straw depletion mulching from technology the mulched for field potato was cultivat significantlyion, Brahmachari slower than thatet al. of [32] bare reported rice-fallow that land. the Onperiodic the other moisture hand, depletion reduction from in soil the moisture mulched was field more was significant significantly in theslower top layerthan ofthat soil of (0–30bare rice- cm) thanfallow in land. the deeper On the soil other layer hand, (Figure reduction6). Zero-tillage in soil moisture and mulching was more act significant as a barrier in to the diminish top layer the of evaporationsoil (0–30 cm) from than the in top the layer deeper of soil soil by layer reducing (Figur thee 6). capillary Zero-tillage rise of and soil mulching water [39 ].act Brahmachari as a barrier etto al.diminish [32] recommended the evaporation that thefrom present the top zero-tillage layer of soil mulching by reducing technology the capillary for potato rise cultivation of soil water was very[39]. beneficialBrahmachari for theet al. coastal [32] recommended saline zone to retainthat the soil present moisture zero-tillage in the dry mulching winter months. technology In the for dry potato tract, cultivation was very beneficial for the coastal saline zone to retain soil moisture in the dry winter SustainabilitySustainability2020 2020,,12 12,, 9808 x FOR PEER REVIEW 1111 ofof 2424

months. In the dry tract, where rainfall is far lower than the mean evaporation, surface residue where rainfall is far lower than the mean evaporation, surface residue retention is a potential option retention is a potential option for conservation of soil moisture by reducing the capillary loss [14]. for conservation of soil moisture by reducing the capillary loss [14].

ZT Pl ots Ri ce- Fall ow

Figure 6. Comparison of soil moisture (%) between zero-tilled–mulched potato fields (ZT Plots) and adjacentFigure 6. rice-fallow Comparison fields of soil (rice-fallow) moisture (%) (vertical between bars zero indicate-tilled–mulched the standard potato deviation fields (ZT of the Plots) mean). and source:adjacent modified rice-fallow from fields Brahmachari (rice-fallow) et al. (vertical [32]. bars indicate the standard deviation of the mean). source: modified from Brahmachari et al. [32]. 6.5. Maintaining Soil Temperature 6.5. Maintaining Soil Temperature Application of crop residue in the field can effectively control the soil temperature by regulating the penetrationApplication of of the crop sunlight residue and in retaining the field thecan heat. effectively Crop residuescontrol the have soil an temperature effective soil by temperature regulating moderatingthe penetration capacity, of asthe thick sunlight mulching and with retaining crop residues the heat. maintains Crop theresidues soil temperature have an ineffective a congenial soil rangetemperature for plant moderating growth throughout capacity, theas croppingthick mulc seasonhing [39with,74 ].crop In general, residues surface maintains crop residuesthe soil decreasetemperature the in daytime a congenial soiltemperature range for plant to growth a certain thro extentughout [67 the]. In cropping dry tropical season climates, [39,74]. In this general, effect issurface very beneficial,crop residues as soildecrease temperature the daytime rises soil too temp higherature for growth to a certain of the plantsextent [[67].75]. In On dry the tropical other hand,climates, in cool this climates,effect is very crop beneficial, residue mulching as soil temp actserature as a barrier rises too to conserve high for thegrowth soil temperatureof the plants and[75]. maintainOn the other a congenial hand, in growing cool climates, environment crop [residue76]. Moreover, mulching crop acts residue as a barrier incorporation to conserve and di thefferent soil tillagetemperature practices and in cropmaintain fields a act congenial as insulating growin materialsg environment and generally [76]. maintainMoreover, soil crop temperature. residue Cropincorporation residue management and different practices tillage practices and conservation in crop tillagefields act systems as insulating affect soil materials temperature, and andgenerally thus, soilmaintain thermal soil properties temperature. are also Crop changed. residue It manageme has also beennt reportedpractices inand many conservation articles that tillage conservation systems practicesaffect soil mostly temperature, alter soil and organic thus, soil matter, thermal bulk proper density,ties soilare moisturealso changed. content, It has and also inter-aggregate been reported contact.in many Therefore, articles that these conservation changes affect practices the heat capacitymostly alter of the soil soil, organic thermal matter, conductivity, bulk density, and thermal soil dimoistureffusivity content, (denoted and as inter-aggregate the ratio between contact. thermal Theref conductivityore, these and changes heat capacity)affect the [heat77,78 capacity]. of the soil, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity (denoted as the ratio between thermal 7.conductivity Crop Residue and Management heat capacity) Improves [77,78]. the Resource Use Efficiency of Rice–Wheat Systems Rice–wheat cropping systems are considered as the one the major sources of foods in South Asia,7. Crop supplying Residue food Management for 400 million Improves people the from Resource an area Use of 13.5Efficiency Mha, which of Rice–Wheat is mainly Systems concentrated in Indo-GangeticRice–wheat cropping plains [79 systems]. Irrational are considered use of natural as the resources one the major such sources as soil, of water, foods and in South energy Asia, to keepsupplying higher food productivity for 400 million along people with residue from an burning area of in 13.5 huge Mha, quantities which is themainly major concentrated threat in the in Indo-GangeticIndo-Gangetic Plainsplains (IGP)[79]. Irrational [80]. More use than of two-thirdsnatural resources of the rice such area as insoil, the water, IGP is and harvested energy usingto keep a combinehigher productivity harvester, generating along with loose residue rice residue burning during in huge the quantities harvesting, is which the major restricts threat the in subsequent the Indo- fieldGangetic preparation Plains (IGP) and sowing. [80]. More Therefore, than two-thirds cost-effective of the and rice hassle-free area in in-situthe IGP residue is harvested burning using is the a combine harvester, generating loose rice residue during the harvesting, which restricts the Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 12 of 24 common practice in all of northwest India. Almost 25 Mt of rice and wheat residues are being burned in the Haryana and Punjab states only. This residue burning results in approximately 31,250,000 million MJ of energy loss along with 37 Mt of CO2 emissions [81]. Residue burning contributes 0.05% to the total GHG emissions of India, and it is also detrimental for soil microorganisms, causing a huge loss in biomass, organic C, surface water, and soil temperature [82]. Therefore, there is an earnest need for well-managed residue management systems with good potential for resource use efficiency.

7.1. Residue Management for Soil Resources Continuous incorporation of rice residues in soil improves the soil carbon stock and the labile pool of soil organic matter [49]. Rice–wheat systems, as exhaustive feeders, remove a greater amount of soil nutrients than those supplied through fertilizer or recycling. The residue retention facilitates nutrient conservation, as it temporarily locks the nutrient availability and helps to release the nutrients slowly throughout the crop growth period [52]. This has a remarkable contribution to nutrient conservation, and to checking the nutrient loss through either leaching or volatilization. Higher organic matter improves soil microbial colonization [55]. Better nutrient availability depends on microbial biomass and its activities in soil. Interestingly, the microbial population is positively correlated with the phyto-biomass present in soil [83]. Microbial activities strongly reflect the soil nutrient storage capacity and recycling, or, more particularly C, N, P, S, and soil organic matter. High organic matter stabilizes the soil aggregation. Rice straw in soil reduces soil erosion and subsequent major nutrient removal. Residue retention positively influences the soil physical resources, such as porosity, bulk density, and 1 aggregate formation. Continuous application of 16 t rice residue ha− resulted in low bulk density 3 from 1.20 to 0.98 g cm− in the 0–5 cm layer in sandy loam soil [84].

7.2. Residue Management for Water Resources Water resource conservation is the major challenge in present-day farming. After harvesting of rainy rice, retention of rice straw in the field efficiently conserves the residual soil moisture for subsequent crops, mainly in dry tracts [85]. Mulching using rice straw not only keeps the soil moist, but also helps to moderate the soil temperature, check the weed emergence, and, most importantly, increase the yield of wheat [86]. It has been reported that 84% of the residues are wasted from rice–wheat systems [87]. Keeping rice straw in zero-till wheat in IGP increases the wheat yield, monetary return, and resource use efficiency, as reported by Erenstein and Laxmi [88] and Ladha et al. [89]. A happy seeder is used to spread loose rice residue uniformly after harvesting, and this instrument has been well adopted for conservation agriculture [90]. Retention of rice residues lowers the crop water use by 3–11% and increases the water use efficiency by 25% as compared to a no-mulching situation [91]. They also reported that rice straw improves the wheat root length by 40% as a consequence of better soil moisture storage. The 13 years of the experiment reported that continuous rice residue incorporation enhanced the wheat yield by 34.89% as compared to residue burning due to the better resource use efficiency and soil health [64].

7.3. Residue Management for Environmental Resources The burning of rice residues is an emerging issue in rice–wheat systems, as it is considered as a cost-effective way of removing stubble. For example, in the Punjab state, 50–60% of total post-harvest rice residues are set on fire in open fields [81]. Residue burning has extremely bad effects on both the soil and aerial environment, along with human health and visibility. It is a recognized threat to rice–wheat cropping system sustainability [92]. Irrational residue waste already trims down 40% of the livestock food supply [93]. Machine-based residue incorporation with the help of microbial spray or bailing of residue for animal feeding may be a useful option for better C sequestration, soil C stock, and low global warming potential. Alternatively, residues from a rice–wheat system may be successfully used as farm compost, livestock feed, mushroom cultivation, surface mulching agents, biochar, and biofuel, or for in-situ Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 13 of 24 incorporation. Almost three tons of nutrient-rich compost can be generated from one hectare of rice straw as an farm yard manure (FYM). Phosphorous fortification with low-grade rock phosphate makes enriched compost have 1.5% N, 2.3% P2O5, and 2.5% K2O[94]. Furthermore, excellent use of rice and wheat straw has been observed in the cultivation of Agaricus bisporus (white button mushroom) and Volvariella volvacea (straw mushroom). Recently, the use of crop residues as biochar is gaining importance, as it has the potential for long-term C storage, thereby resisting microbial degradation and checking GHG emissions [95]. In-situ residue incorporation has several advantages for soil physicochemical and biological properties and crop productivity, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, the residues generated from the dominating rice–wheat cropping systems should be managed effectively and efficiently for enhancing the sequestration of carbon and maintaining the sustainability of production. Upgraded and modern technologies should be incorporated to maintain the distance from residue burning with the consideration of farmers’ economic viability. Location- and soil-specific residue conservation practices would be a great researchable issue in the future.

8. Conversion Technologies for Sustainable Crop Residue Management Growing populations will demand more food production in the future, which brings the chance of rapid crop residue generation; at the same time, the dependency of developing countries on Gulf countries for fuel is continuously increasing [96]. The intensive use of fossil fuels in the present day is causing huge GHG emissions and a range of environmental issues. The term bioenergy refers to energy derived from biomass, which is considered as a renewable resource, and is thereby gaining importance as an alternate means of sustainable energy generation [97]. The biofuels that are the main sources of bioenergy may be produced from edible food crops, such as maize, barley, sugarcane, potato, and sunflower. However, presently, biofuel production from agricultural wastes—more specifically, from crop residues—has been emphasized to facilitate residue recycling along with renewable energy generation through various conversion technologies [98]. Lignocellulosic crop residues are easily available in the food chain, and they are low-cost materials and good sources of energy [99]. As an example, in India, 500 Mt of crop residues are generated annually; interestingly, only 12.2% is used for energy production [22]. This massive amount of agricultural waste has real potential to generate various sources of bioenergy through biotransformation, which includes two general techniques: namely, thermochemical and biochemical transformation (Table1).

Table 1. Conversion technologies for sustainable crop residue management and their possible outputs.

Techniques Outputs Gasification Syngas Liquefaction Bio-oil Pyrolysis Syngas, Bio-oil, Biochar Combustion Electricity Anaerobic digestion Biogas Alcoholic fermentation Bio-ethanol Photobiological hydrogen production Bio-hydrogen Transesterification Biodiesel Photosynthetic microbial fuel cell Electricity

8.1. Thermochemical Transformation Thermochemical conversion involves three processes: gasification, pyrolysis, and liquefaction [100]. Among these, the selection of the procedure depends on the amount and nature of residues, energy preference, financial circumstances, and environmental policy [101].

8.1.1. Gasification

This technique comprises heating of the biomass at 500–1400 ◦C with 33 bar atmospheric pressure in anaerobic conditions to produce a mixture of combustible gases. In this process, the carbonaceous Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 14 of 24 residues transform into syngas, including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbon, and methane, with the existence of gasification agents [101]. This syngas is utilized as an energy carrier of biofuel, hydrogen gas, and biomethane gas. It has been reported that gasification is more efficient for producing hydrogen gas than pyrolysis or liquefaction [102]. During the gasification process, large amounts of CO2 and CO are generated, and Watson et al. [103] reported that agricultural residues have higher CO2 and CO contents. A fluidized bed gasifier is used for rice straw gasification [104]. Some metals, such as Ni, Ru, Cu, and Co, are also used as catalysts to boost the hydrogen and methane production.

8.1.2. Pyrolysis

This is another means of thermal decomposition of biomass that takes place at 350–550 ◦C in anoxic conditions. Pyrolysis transforms the organic residues into a solid, liquid, and gas mixture. In particular, liquid fuel (py-oil or bio-oil) is generated from pyrolysis, while gasification generates combustible fuel gas [105]. Based on the operating conditions, pyrolysis is divided into three different types; namely, slow, fast, and flash pyrolysis. Among them, biofuel production from fast pyrolysis is being popularized, as it is very cost effective, energy efficient, and eco-friendly, and has high (75 wt%) py-oil yielding ability [106].

8.1.3. Liquefaction The process of liquefaction involves bio-oil production like pyrolysis, but the main difference is that liquefaction requires a low temperature and elevated pressure with the presence of hydrogen. Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) utilizes sub-critical water at a temperature of 250–374 ◦C with a 40–220 bar operating pressure to produce the bio-oil from the residue biomass [107]. The HTL method is utilized when biomass contains high moisture, as the process reduces the cost of drying or de-watering. The bio-oil production from this method ranges from 17 to 68 wt%, depending on the biomass materials used [107]. Not only the biofuel production, but also the post-hydrothermal liquefaction wastewater contains numerous numbers of nutrients that may be used further in farming practices [108].

8.2. Biochemical Transformation This process involves some specific yeast and bacteria to transform the residue into useful energy. Three means of biochemical transformation have evolved, i.e., anaerobic digestion, alcoholic fermentation, and photobiological techniques, to produce sustainable energy [108,109].

8.2.1. Anaerobic Digestion The method of anaerobic digestion is used in biogas synthesis from residue biomass, involving numerous numbers of microorganisms. The biogas contains mainly methane and CO2, with 20–40% of the energy of the total biomass and a low heating value. This process can be carried out even with wet biomass with up to 90% moisture content. Anaerobic digestion has three major phases: hydrolysis, fermentation, and methanogenesis. Hydrolysis is involved in the transformation of complex biomolecules into simple biomolecules, which are transformed into alcohol, acetic acid, fatty acid, H2, and CO2 by the fermentation process. Methanogenesis metabolizes these gas mixtures into biogas consisting of CH4 (60–70%) and CO2 (30–40%) [109].

8.2.2. Alcoholic Fermentation The residues contain fermentable sugars that can be used for bioethanol production via alcoholic fermentation with the help of yeast or bacteria. Firstly, the breakdown of complex polysaccharides into simple sugar is carried out through the hydrolysis process before feeding. After that, comprehensive steps of distillation are followed to produce the crude alcohol, containing 10–15% of ethanol [110]. The remaining residues are processed into worthy products via liquefaction, gasification, and pyrolysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 15 of 24

8.2.3. Photo-Biological Techniques Plant growth and development are extremely dependent on light. Various wavelengths cause different changes in plants [111]. Numerous wavelengths regulate different biological, physiological, and physical processes in plants. Photo-biological techniques are mainly used for H2 gas production from microalgal biomass in anaerobic conditions [109]. This technique very often helps in regulating different biological as well as physiological processes in plants. Moreover, it helps in regulating plant growth and development.

8.3. Conversion of Crop Residues into Bioelectricity A combustion technique is used to generate bioelectricity from lignocellulosic crop residues. In combustion, biomass is mixed with O2 at a high temperature to produce CO2,H2O, and heat. The process involves the conversion of chemical energy into heat, light, and radiation energy. The biomass turns into char and volatiles, which react with O2 and generate heat; thereafter, the heat is used to generate stream, which operates the steam turbine to produce electricity. Recently, a promising technique named microbial fuel cell (MFC) has been developed to generate bioelectricity from organic biomass with the help of electrogenic bacteria in the absence of oxygen [112]. Farine et al. [113] reported that bioelectricity generation from agricultural waste reduced a huge amount of GHG emissions, mitigating 28% and 9% of electricity emissions and national emissions in Australia [113]. It has been estimated that bioelectricity from farming residues would supply 10–20% of future electricity, as well as alleviate approximately 27 million tons of CO2 production in the next 15 years [114]. Moreover, MFC has great potential to generate high-density power in a green and sustainable way.

9. Constraints of Crop Residue Management in Rice–Wheat Systems The rice–wheat cropping systems (RWCS) is the major cropping system across the globe, and most of the area (around 85%) falls in the Indo-Gangetic plains [115,116]. This cropping system is spread over India, from the vast area of Punjab in the West to West Bengal in the East, but, in recent times, the sustainability of this cropping system has come into question with respect to the proper management of crop residues [117]. The traditional practices of growing rice and wheat by the farmers as per their knowledge are not only capital intensive, but also employ a large number of inputs like water, fertilizers, labor, etc. This input-intensive system furthermore emits a large amount of GHGs. Conventionally, rice fields are prepared through repeated wet tillage operations, followed by transplanting of seedlings into puddled soil. On the other hand, the wheat fields are prepared by broadcasting/drilling seeds after deep plowing of lands [118]. Seed-bed preparation in this cropping system leads to oxidizing the organic carbon within the soil, which is unfavorable for the environment. In addition, the conventional tillage process is not suitable and environmentally friendly, as it makes the soil a source rather than a 1 sink of environmental pollutants [117]. It is estimated that around 10–14 Mg ha− crop residues were produced from RWCSs in the IGP [119]. Before initiation of mechanized harvesting, all of the residues were taken away from the field for alternative uses. A large portion of residues was leftover in the field after the introduction of mechanized harvesting using combine harvesters. This, in turn, impedes the conventional technique of seedbed preparation for the subsequent wheat crop [120]. Removal of these crop residues is labor and capital intensive. Therefore, farmers usually burn these residues to easily avoid residue removal activities. It is reported that about 75% of crop residues in the IGP are burned in RWCSs, which negatively affects the soil and the environment [21]. Though it is reported that both crop residue burning and removal are the primary cause of soil degradation in some developing countries, they have some positive impact on improving soil health status [119]. The major concern for the RWCSs is residue management. A limited amount of crop residues in RWCS are used for domestic and industrial purposes. The rest of the residues are left in the field and burned in different areas across the country [121]. The burning of rice residues is one of the major problems that adversely affects soil as well as the environment [118]. Amongst rice and wheat residues, Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 16 of 24 wheat straw is used in the dairy sector, but due to the high silica content, rice straw is not used as cattle feed in different regions across the country. In addition, boosting productivity is also a major concern of RWCSs in order to respond to the pressure of population growth in India. Incorporation of rice straw causes immobilization of nitrogen due to the wider C:N ratio of rice straw, and it decreases grain yield [118]. Therefore, farmers usually burn rice residues in their fields to get rid of them, and thus assure timely sowing of wheat crops. Delayed sowing of wheat often decreases grain yield. Burning of crop residues ultimately deteriorates the soil health in many ways [122]. Thus, to avoid the burning of rice residues, numerous alternative strategies have been suggested by different experts, and one can choose the most efficient option depending on their socioeconomic and cultural status for the judicious application of rice residues [123].

10. Conclusions and Future Directions Agriculture is the mainstay for a large number of populations worldwide. It brings bread for more than two-thirds of the population and provides food for the rest. On the other hand, the global population has been increasing at an alarming rate for the last two to three decades. This increasing rate generates pressure within the agricultural system to grow more food. Furthermore, the indiscriminate undermining of natural resources leads to the limitation of these resources. This emphasizes the need for the universal adoption and expansion of improved conservation technologies. The conservation technologies in agriculture are considered the most valuable technologies to sustain food production as well as to conserve resources. Modern intensive agricultural practices are highly input-sensitive, and uneven depletion of various natural resources results in their deficiency in many areas across the globe. Crop residue management not only improves soil physical, chemical, and biological status, but also helps in protecting the soil surface from nutrient loss. Crop residues are often considered as waste material in terms of their economic importance, but they provide elemental carbon in soil and offer a variety of mechanisms for nutrient recycling in soil. Crop residue management helps in maintaining soil moisture content by protecting the soil surface and increasing irrigation efficiency (Figure7). It provides food for soil microorganisms by supplementing additional soil organic matter. In addition, crop residues offer multiple ecosystem services to the environment when retained in the field after harvest. Crop residues as natural resources help to develop soil stability and maintain soil fertility. Good management practices with crop residues reduce soil erosion. Growing more food for an ever-increasing population brings the opportunity for fast residue generation. Ecosystem services from crop residues improve soil health status and supplement necessary elements for plants. Moreover, proper management practices can be useful for imparting the beneficial roles of these elements. In addition, the fuel crisis in developing countries who wish to maintain the pace of development must be addressed properly through the generation of renewable energy. Intensive use of fossil fuel produces huge GHG emissions and a series of associated environmental problems. Therefore, the alternate source of renewable energy derived from biomass in the form of crop residues will gain importance as a sustainable technique for energy generation in the near future. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 17 of 24 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

Figure 7. Schematic overview and strategies for efficient crop residue management. Figure 7. Schematic overview and strategies for efficient crop residue management.

AuthorAuthor Contributions: Contributions: Conceptualization,Conceptualization, S.S. S.S. (Sukam (Sukamalal Sarkar) Sarkar) and and A.H.; A.H.; resources, resources, K.B.; K.B.; data data curation, curation, S.S. S.S. (Sukamal Sarkar), S.G. and S.S. (Saikat Saha); writing—original draft preparation, S.S. (Sukamal Sarkar), S.G. and (Sukamal Sarkar), S.G., and S.S. (Saikat Saha); writing—original draft preparation, S.S. (Sukamal Sarkar), S.G., S.S. (Saikat Saha); writing—review and editing, K.R., K.B., M.S., A.H. and M.B.; visualization, K.B. and A.H.; andsupervision, S.S. (Saikat A.H.; Saha); funding writing—review acquisition, and A.H., editing, M.S. K.R., and M.B. K.B., AllM.S., authors A.H., and have M.B.; read visualization, and agreed to K.B. the and published A.H.; supervision,version of the A.H.; manuscript. funding acquisition, A.H., M.S., and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work was supported by ‘Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya’, WB, India, Bangladesh Wheat Funding:and Maize This Research work was Institute, supported Bangladesh, by ‘Bidhan the Chandra ‘Ministry Krishi of Education, Viswavidyalaya’, Youth, and WB, Sports India, of Bangladesh the Czech Republic Wheat grant number (S grant of MSMT CR)’, and the ‘Slovak University of Agriculture’, Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2,949 01 and Maize Research Institute, Bangladesh, the ‘Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic Nitra, Slovak Republic under the project ‘APVV-18-0465 and EPPN2020-OPVaI-VA-ITMS313011T8130. grant number (S grant of MSMT CR)’, and the ‘Slovak University of Agriculture’, Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2,949 01 Nitra,Conflicts Slovak of Interest:Republic Theunder authors the projec declaret ‘APVV-18-0465 no conflict of and interest. EPPN2020-OPVaI-VA-ITMS313011T813 The funders had no role in the design′. of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to Conflictspublish the of results.Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publishAbbreviations the results. C Carbon AbbreviationsC:N Carbon:Nitrogen CAC Conservation AgricultureCarbon CECC:N Cation ExchangeCarbon:Nitrogen Capacity CH4CA Methane Conservation Agriculture DHA Dehydrogenase activity CEC Cation Exchange Capacity GHGs Green House Gases CH4 Methane HTL Hydrothermal liquefaction DHA Dehydrogenase activity MBC Soil microbial biomass GHGs Green House Gases MFC Microbial fuel cell HTL Hydrothermal liquefaction N2O Nitrous oxide MBC Soil microbial biomass MFC Microbial fuel cell N2O Nitrous oxide Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 18 of 24

NPK Nitrogen–phosphorus–potassium NPMCR National Policy for Management of Crop Residues RWCS Rice–wheat cropping system SIC Soil inorganic carbon SOC Soil organic carbon

References

1. Kar, S.; Pramanick, B.; Brahmachari, K.; Saha, G.; Mahapatra, B.; Saha, A.; Kumar, A. Exploring the Best Tillage Option in Rice Based Diversified Cropping Systems in Alluvial Soil of Eastern India. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 205, 104761. [CrossRef] 2. Meena, R.S.; Lal, R. Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Springer: Singapore, 2018. 3. Mondal, M.; Garai, S.; Banerjee, H.; Sarkar, S.; Kundu, R. Mulching and Nitrogen Management in Peanut Cultivation: An Evaluation of Productivity, Energy Trade-Off, Carbon Footprint and Profitability. Energ. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 1–15. [CrossRef] 4. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Crop Residue Removal Impacts on Soil Productivity and Environmental Quality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2009, 28, 139–163. [CrossRef] 5. Chen, J.; Gong, Y.; Wang, S.; Guan, B.; Balkovic, J.; Kraxner, F. To Burn or Retain Crop Residues on Croplands? An Integrated Analysis of Crop Residue Management in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 141–150. [CrossRef] 6. Maneepitak, S.; Ullah, H.; Paothong, K.; Kachenchart, B.; Datta, A.; Shrestha, R.P. Effect of Water and Rice Straw Management Practices on Yield and Water Productivity of Irrigated Lowland Rice in the Central Plain of Thailand. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 211, 89–97. [CrossRef] 7. Zhao, X.; Liu, B.Y.; Liu, S.L.; Qi, J.; Wang, X.; Pu, C.; Li, S.; Zhang, X.; Yang, X.; Lal, R.; et al. Sustaining Crop Production in China’s Cropland by Crop Residue Retention: A Meta-Analysis. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 694–709. [CrossRef] 8. Jat, S.L.; Parihar, C.M.; Singh, A.K.; Nayak, H.S.; Meena, B.R.; Kumar, B.; Parihar, M.D.; Jat, M.L. Differential Response from Nitrogen Sources with and Without Residue Management Under Conservation Agriculture on Crop Yields, Water-Use and Economics in Maize-Based Rotations. Field Crop. Res. 2019, 236, 96–110. [CrossRef] 9. Lu, X. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Crop Residue Return on Crop Yields and Water Use Efficiency. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231740. [CrossRef] 10. Yadvinder-Singh, B.-S.; Timsina, J. Crop Residue Management for Nutrient Cycling and Improving Soil Productivity in Rice-Based Cropping Systems in the Tropics. Adv. Agron. 2005, 85, 269–407. 11. Liu, Z.; Gao, T.; Tian, S.; Hu, H.; Li, G.; Ning, T. Soil Organic Carbon Increment Sources and Crop Yields Under Long-Term Conservation Tillage Practices in Wheat-Maize Systems. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 1138–1150. [CrossRef] 12. Lal, R. World Crop Residues Production and Implications of Its Use as a Biofuel. Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 575–584. [CrossRef][PubMed] 13. Rathod, P.H.; Bhoyar, S.M.; Katkar, R.N.; Kadu, P.R.; Jadhao, S.D.; Konde, N.M.; Deshmukh, P.W.; Patle, P.N. Recycling and Management of Crop Residues for Sustainable Soil Health in Climate Change Scenario with Farmer’s Profit as Frontline Moto. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 51–55. 14. Brahmachari, K.; Sarkar, S.; Santra, D.K.; Maitra, S. Millet for Food and Nutritional Security in Drought Prone and Red Laterite Region of Eastern India. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2019, 26, 1–7. [CrossRef] 15. Sarkar, S.; Banerjee, H.; Ray, K.; Ghosh, D. Boron Fertilization Effects in Processing Grade Potato on an Inceptisol of West Bengal, India. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 1456–1470. [CrossRef] 16. Johnson, J.; Novak, J.; Varvel, G. Crop Residue Mass Needed to Maintain Soil Organic Carbon Levels: Can It Be Determined. Bioenergy Res. 2014, 7, 481–490. [CrossRef] 17. Shan, J.; Yan, X. Effects of Crop Residue Returning on Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Agricultural Soils. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 71, 170–175. [CrossRef] 18. Badaruddin, M.; Reynolds, M.P.; Ageeb, O.A.A. Wheat Management in Warm Environments: Effect of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers, Irrigation Frequency, and Mulching. Agron. J. 1999, 91, 975–983. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 19 of 24

19. Purwanto, B.H.; Alam, S. Impact of Intensive Agricultural Management on Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics in the Humid Tropics. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 66, 50–59. [CrossRef] 20. Fang, Y.; Singh, B.P.; Collins, D.; Li, B.; Zhu, J.; Tavakkoli, E. Nutrient Supply Enhanced Wheat Residue-Carbon Mineralization, Microbial Growth, and Microbial Carbon-Use Efficiency When Residues Were Supplied at High Rate in Contrasting Soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 126, 168–178. [CrossRef] 21. Kumar, K.; Goh, K.M. Crop Residues and Management Practices: Effects on Soil Quality, Soil Nitrogen Dynamics, Crop Yield, and Nitrogen Recovery. Adv. Agron. 1999, 68, 197–319. [CrossRef] 22. NPMCR (National Policy for Management of Crop Residues). Incorporation in Soil and Mulching Baling/Binder for Domestic/Industrial as Fuel. Government of India Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Cooperation. Available online: http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/NPMCR_1.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2020). 23. Brahmachari, K. Agriculture. In State of Environment Report West Bengal 2016; Rudra, K., Mukherjee, S., Mukhopadhyaya, U., Gupta, D., Eds.; West Bengal Pollution Control Board: Kolkata, India, 2016; p. 504. 24. Ray, K.; Sen, P.; Goswami, R.; Sarkar, S.; Brahmachari, K.; Ghosh, A.; Nanda, M.K.; Mainuddin, M. Profitability, Energetics and GHGs Emission Estimation from Rice-Based Cropping Systems in the Coastal Saline Zone of West Bengal; India. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233303. [CrossRef][PubMed] 25. FAO FAOSTAT. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#search/pulse (accessed on 18 November 2019). 26. Burke, C.S.; Salas, E.; Smith-Jentsch, K.; Rosen, M.A. Measuring Macrocognition in Teams: Some Insights for Navigating the Complexities. In Macrocognition Metrics and Scenarios; Ashgate Publishing Ltd.: Farnham, UK, 2012; pp. 29–43. 27. Raza, M.H.; Abid, M.; Yan, T.; Ali Naqvi, S.A.; Akhtar, S.; Faisal, M. Understanding Farmers’ Intentions to Adopt Sustainable Crop Residue Management Practices: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 613–623. [CrossRef] 28. Nyanga, P.H.; Umar, B.B.; Chibamba, D.; Mubanga, K.; Kunda-Wamuwi, C.; Mushili, B. Reinforcing Ecosystem Services Through Conservation Agriculture in Sustainable Food Systems; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. 29. Balwinder-Singh; Humphreys, E.; Gaydon, D.S.; Eberbach, P.L. Evaluation of the Effects of Mulch on Optimum Sowing Date and Irrigation Management of Zero Till Wheat in Central Punjab, India Using APSIM. F Crop Res 197. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 197, 83–96. [CrossRef][PubMed] 30. Ventrella, D.; Stellacci, A.M.; Castrignanò, A.; Charfeddine, M.; Castellini, M. Effects of Crop Residue Management on Winter Durum Wheat Productivity in a Long Term Experiment in Southern Italy. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 77, 188–198. [CrossRef] 31. Aynehband, A.; Gorooei, A.; Moezzi, A.A. Vermicompost: An Eco-Friendly Technology for Crop Residue Management in Organic Agriculture. Energy Procedia 2017, 141, 667–671. [CrossRef] 32. Brahmachari, K.; Nanda, M.K.; Saha, H.; Goswami, R.; Ray, K.; Sarkar, S.; Ghosh, A. Final report of the project on Cropping systems intensification in the salt affected coastal zones of Bangladesh and West Bengal, India (CSI4CZ). Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal, India. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, 1–88. 33. Valkama, E.; Kunypiyaeva, G.; Zhapayev, R.; Karabayev, M.; Zhusupbekov, E.; Perego, A.; Schillaci, C.; Sacco, D.; Moretti, B.; Grignani, C.; et al. Can Conservation Agriculture Increase Soil Carbon Sequestration? A Modelling Approach. Geoderma 2020, 369, 114298. [CrossRef] 34. Smitha, G.R.; Basak, B.B.; Thondaiman, V.; Saha, A. Nutrient Management through Organics, Bio-Fertilizers and Crop Residues Improves Growth, Yield and Quality of Sacred Basil (Ocimum Sanctum Linn). Ind. Crop. Prod. 2019, 128, 599–606. [CrossRef] 35. Carlesso, L.; Beadle, A.; Cook, S.M.; Evans, J.; Hartwell, G.; Ritz, K.; Sparkes, D.; Wu, L.; Murray, P.J. Soil Compaction Effects on Litter Decomposition in an Arable Field: Implications for Management of Crop Residues and Headlands. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 134, 31–37. [CrossRef] 36. Wang, X.; Qi, J.Y.; Zhang, X.Z.; Li, S.; Latif Virk, A.; Zhao, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhang, H. Effects of Tillage and Residue Management on Soil Aggregates and Associated Carbon Storage in a Double Paddy Cropping System. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104339. [CrossRef] 37. Chatterjee, S.; Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Pradhan, S.; Singh, R.; Datta, S.P. Effects of Irrigation, Crop Residue Mulch and Nitrogen Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) on Soil Carbon Pools in a Sandy Loam Soil of Indo-Gangetic Plain Region. Catena 2018, 165, 207–216. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 20 of 24

38. Singh, V.K.; Dwivedi, B.S.; Yadvinder-Singh; Singh, S.K.; Mishra, R.P.; Shukla, A.K.; Rathore, S.S.; Shekhawat, K.; Majumdar, K.; Jat, M.L. Effect of Tillage and Crop Establishment, Residue Management and K Fertilization on Yield, K Use Efficiency and Apparent K Balance Under Rice-Maize System in North-Western India. F Crop Res 224. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 224, 1–12. [CrossRef] 39. Samui, I.; Skalicky, M.; Sarkar, S.; Brahmachari, K.; Sau, S.; Ray, K.; Hossain, A.; Ghosh, A.; Nanda, M.K.; Bell, R.W.; et al. Yield Response, Nutritional Quality and Water Productivity of Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) Are Influenced by Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulch in the Coastal Saline Ecosystem of Ganges Delta, India. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6779. [CrossRef] 40. Escalante, L.E.; Brye, K.R.; Faske, T.R. Nematode Populations as Affected by Residue and Water Management in a Long-Term Wheat-Soybean Double-Crop System in Eastern Arkansas. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 157, 103761. [CrossRef] 41. Rusinamhodzi, L.; Corbeels, M.; Giller, K.E. Diversity in Crop Residue Management Across an Intensification Gradient in Southern Africa: System Dynamics and Crop Productivity. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 185, 79–88. [CrossRef] 42. Eriksen-Hamel, N.S.; Speratti, A.B.; Whalen, J.K.; Légère, A.; Madramootoo, C.A. Earthworm Populations and Growth Rates Related to Long-Term Crop Residue and Tillage Management. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 311–316. [CrossRef] 43. Frazão, J.; de Goede, R.G.M.; Salánki, T.E.; Brussaard, L.; Faber, J.H.; Hedde, M.; Pulleman, M.M. Responses of Earthworm Communities to Crop Residue Management After Inoculation of the Earthworm Lumbricus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758). Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 142, 177–188. [CrossRef] 44. Puget, P.; Lal, R. Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in a Mollisol in Central Ohio as Affected by Tillage and Land Use. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 80, 201–213. [CrossRef] 45. Liang, F.; Li, J.; Yang, X.; Huang, S.; Cai, Z.; Gao, H.; Ma, J.; Cui, X.; Xu, M. Three-Decade Long Fertilization-Induced Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Depends on Edaphic Characteristics in Six Typical Croplands. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30350. [CrossRef] 46. Garai, S.; Mondal, M.; Mukherjee, S. Smart Practices and Adaptive Technologies for Climate Resilient Agriculture; Maitra, S., Pramanick, B., Eds.; New Delhi Publishers: Kolkata, India, 2020; pp. 327–358. 47. Sombrero, A.; de Benito, A. Carbon Accumulation in Soil. Ten-Year Study of Conservation Tillage and Crop Rotation in a Semi-Arid Area of Castile-Leon, Spain. Soil Till. Res. 2010, 107, 64–70. [CrossRef] 48. Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils. Economic and sector work Report number 67395-GLB 2012, doi:10.1017/S0021859609990104. Available online: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 751961468336701332/pdf/673950REVISED000CarbonSeq0Web0final.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2020). 49. Wang, W.J.; Dalal, R.C.; Moody, P.W. Soil Carbon Sequestration and Density Distribution in a Vertosol Under Different Farming Practices. Soil Res. 2004, 42, 875–882. [CrossRef] 50. Conteh, A.; Blair, G.J.; Rochester, I.J. Soil Organic Carbon Fractions in a Vertisol Under Irrigated Cotton Production as Affected by Burning and Incorporating Cotton Stubble. Soil Res. 1998, 36, 655–667. [CrossRef] 51. Tiemann, L.K.; Grandy, A.S.; Atkinson, E.E.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; McDaniel, M.D. Crop Rotational Diversity Enhances Belowground Communities and Functions in an Agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 761–771. [CrossRef] 52. Bhupinderpal-Singh, R.Z.; Bowden, J.W. Carbon, Nitrogen and Sulphur Cycling Following Incorporation of Canola Residue of Different Sizes into a Nutrient-Poor Sandy Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 1591–1597. 53. Salas, A.M.; Elliott, E.T.; Westfall, D.G.; Cole, C.V.; Six, J. The Role of Particulate Organic Matter in Phosphorus Cycling. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2003, 67, 181–189. [CrossRef] 54. Pituello, C.; Polese, R.; Morari, F.; Berti, A. Outcomes from a Long-Term Study on Crop Residue Effects on Plant Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Contrasting Soils. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 77, 179–187. [CrossRef] 55. Piccoli, I.; Sartori, F.; Polese, R.; Berti, A. Crop Yield After 5 Decades of Contrasting Residue Management. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2020, 117, 231–241. [CrossRef] 56. Du Preez, C.C.; Steyn, J.T.; Kotze, E. Long-Term Effects of Wheat Residue Management on Some Fertility Indicators of a Semi-Arid Plinthosol. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 63, 25–33. [CrossRef] 57. Salinas-Garcia, J.R.; Báez-González, A.D.; Tiscareño-López, M.; Rosales-Robles, E. Residue Removal and Tillage Interaction Effects on Soil Properties Under Rain-Fed Corn Production in Central Mexico. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 59, 67–79. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 21 of 24

58. Sarkar, S.; Ghosh, A.; Brahmachari, K. Application of APSIM Model for Assessing the Complexities of Rice-based Cropping Systems of South-Asia; Maitra, S., Pramanick, B., Eds.; New Delhi Publishers: Kolkata, India, 2020; pp. 212–233. 59. Whitbread, A.; Blair, G.; Konboon, Y.; Lefroy, R.; Naklang, K. Managing Crop Residues, Fertilizers and Leaf Litters to Improve Soil C, Nutrient Balances, and the Grain Yield of Rice and Wheat Cropping Systems in Thailand and Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 100, 251–263. [CrossRef] 60. Poeplau, C.; Reiter, L.; Berti, A.; Kätterer, T. Qualitative and Quantitative Response of Soil Organic Carbon to 40 Years of Crop Residue Incorporation Under Contrasting Nitrogen Fertilization Regimes. Soil Res. 2017, 55, 1–9. [CrossRef] 61. Hijbeek, R.; van Ittersum, M.K.; ten Berge, H.F.M.; Gort, G.; Spiegel, H.; Whitmore, A.P. Do Organic Inputs Matter: A Meta-Analysis of Additional Yield Effects for Arable Crops in Europe. Plant Soil 2017, 411, 293–303. [CrossRef] 62. Schjønning, P.; Jensen, J.L.; Bruun, S.; Jensen, L.S.; Christensen, B.T.; Munkholm, L.J.; Oelofse, M.; Baby, S.; Knudsen, L. The Role of Soil Organic Matter for Maintaining Crop Yields: Evidence for a Renewed Conceptual Basis. Adv. Agron. 2018, 150, 35–79. [CrossRef] 63. Wei, W.; Yan, Y.; Cao, J.; Christie, P.; Zhang, F.; Fan, M. Effects of Combined Application of Organic Amendments and Fertilizers on Crop Yield and Soil Organic Matter: An Integrated Analysis of Long-Term Experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 225, 86–92. [CrossRef] 64. Mandal, K.G.; Misra, A.K.; Hati, K.M.; Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Ghosh, P.K.; Mohanty, M. Rice Residue- Management Options and Effects on Soil Properties and Crop Productivity. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2004, 2, 224–231. 65. Adimassu, Z.; Alemu, G.; Tamene, L. Effects of Tillage and Crop Residue Management on Runoff, Soil Loss and Crop Yield in the Humid Highlands of Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 2019, 168, 11–18. [CrossRef] 66. Ghosh, K.; Sarkar, S.; Brahmachari, K.; Porel, S. Standardizing Row Spacing of Vetiver for River Bank Stabilization of Lower Ganges. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2018, 26, 1–12. [CrossRef] 67. Turmel, M.S.; Speratti, A.; Baudron, F.; Verhulst, N.; Govaerts, B. Crop Residue Management and Soil Health: A Systems Analysis. Agric. Syst. 2015, 134, 6–16. [CrossRef] 68. Fan, X.W.; Chi, B.L.; Jiao, X.Y.; Li, D.W.; Zhang, Z.P. Soil Improvement and Yield Increment in Salt-Alkaline Fields by Straw Mulch. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 1993, 11, 13–18. 69. Yang, Y.M.; Liu, X.J.; Li, W.Q.; Li, C.Z. Effect of Different Mulch Materials on Winter Wheat Production in Desalinized Soil in Heilonggang Region of North China. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B 2006, 7, 858–867. [CrossRef] 70. Govaerts, B.; Sayre, K.D.; Lichter, K.; Dendooven, L.; Deckers, J. Influence of Permanent Raised Bed Planting and Residue Management on Physical and Chemical Soil Quality in Rain Fed Maize/Wheat Systems. Plant Soil 2007, 291, 39–54. [CrossRef] 71. Sarkar, S.; Samui, I.; Brahmachari, K.; Ray, K.; Ghosh, A.; Nanda, M.K. Management Practices for Utera Pulses in Rice-Fallow System Under Coastal Saline Zone of West Bengal. J. Indian Soc. Coast Agric. Res. 2019, 37, 98–103. 72. Jat, R.K.; Singh, R.G.; Gupta, R.K.; Gill, G.; Chauhan, B.S.; Pooniya, V. Tillage, Crop Establishment, Residue Management and Herbicide Applications for Effective Weed Control in Direct Seeded Rice of Eastern Indo–Gangetic Plains of South Asia. Crop Prot. 2019, 123, 12–20. [CrossRef] 73. Mondal, S.; Chakraborty, D.; Das, T.K.; Shrivastava, M.; Mishra, A.K.; Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Aggarwal, P.; Chaudhari, S.K. Conservation Agriculture Had a Strong Impact on the Sub-Surface Soil Strength and Root Growth in Wheat After a 7-Year Transition Period. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 195, 104385. [CrossRef] 74. Mondal, M.; Skalicky, M.; Garai, S.; Hossain, A.; Sarkar, S.; Banerjee, H.; Kundu, R.; Brestic, M.; Barutcular, C.; Erman, M.; et al. Supplementing Nitrogen in Combination with Rhizobium Inoculation and Soil Mulch in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Production System: Part II. Effect on Phenology, Growth, Yield Attributes, Pod Quality, Profitability and Nitrogen Use Efficiency. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1513. [CrossRef] 75. Su, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wu, W.; Cai, D.; Lv, J.; Jiang, G.; Huang, J.; Gao, J.; Hartmann, R.; Gabriels, D. Effects of Conservation Tillage Practices on Winter Wheat Water-Use Efficiency and Crop Yield on the Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 87, 307–314. [CrossRef] 76. Shen, Y.; McLaughlin, N.; Zhang, X.; Xu, M.; Liang, A. Effect of Tillage and Crop Residue on Soil Temperature Following Planting for a Black Soil in Northeast China. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4500. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 22 of 24

77. Hatfield, J.L.; Prueger, J.H. Microclimate Effects of Crop Residues on Biological Processes. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 1996, 54, 47–59. [CrossRef] 78. Shukla, M.K.; Lal, R.; Ebinger, M. Tillage Effects on Physical and Hydrological Properties of a Typic Argiaquoll in Central Ohio. Soil Sci. 2003, 168, 802–811. [CrossRef] 79. Kumar, V.; Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Balwinder-Singh; Gathala, M.K.; Malik, R.K.; Kamboj, B.R.; Yadav, A.K.; Ladha, J.K.; Raman, A.; et al. Can Productivity and Profitability Be Enhanced in Intensively Managed Cereal Systems While Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Production? Assessing Sustainable Intensification Options in the Breadbasket of India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 252, 132–147. [CrossRef] 80. Choudhary, K.M.; Jat, H.S.; Nandal, D.P.; Bishnoi, D.K.; Sutaliya, J.M.; Choudhary, M.; Yadvinder-Singh; Sharma, P.C.; Jat, M.L. Evaluating Alternatives to Rice-Wheat System in Western Indo-Gangetic Plains: Crop Yields, Water Productivity and Economic Profitability. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 218, 1–10. [CrossRef] 81. Yadvinder-Singh; Singh, M.; Sidhu, H.S.; Humphreys, E.; Thind, H.S.; Jat, M.L.; Blackwell, J.; Singh, V. Nitrogen Management for Zero Till Wheat with Surface Retention of Rice Residues in North-West India. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 184, 183–191. [CrossRef] 82. Gadde, B.; Menke, C.; Wassmann, R. Rice Straw as a Renewable Energy Source in India, Thailand and the Philippines: Overall Potential and Limitations for Energy Contribution and Greenhouse Gas Migration. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 1532–1546. [CrossRef] 83. Verhulst, N.; Sayre, K.D.; Vargas, M.; Crossa, J.; Deckers, J.; Raes, D.; Govaerts, B. Wheat Yield and Tillage-Straw Management System x Year Interaction Explained by Climatic covariables for an Irrigated Bed Planting System in Northwestern Mexico. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 124, 347–356. [CrossRef] 84. Singh, S.K.; Kumar, D.; Lal, S.S. Integrated Use of Crop Residues and Fertilizers for Sustainability of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Based Cropping Systems in Bihar. Indian J. Agron. 2010, 55, 203–208. 85. Chavan, M.L.; Phad, P.R.; Khodke, U.M.; Jadhav, S.B. Effect of Organic Mulches on Soil Moisture Conservation and Yield of Rabi Sorghum (M-35-1). Int. J. Agric. Eng. 2010, 2, 322–328. 86. Rahman, M.A.; Chikushi, J.; Saifizzaman, M.; Lauren, J.G. Rice Straw Mulching and Nitrogen Response of No-Till Wheat Following Rice in Bangladesh. Field Crops Res. 2005, 91, 71–81. [CrossRef] 87. Singh, C.P.; Panigrahy, S. Characterisation of Residue Burning from Agricultural System in India Using Space-Based Observations. J. Indian Soc. Remote 2011, 39, 423. [CrossRef] 88. Erenstein, O.; Laxmi, V. Zero-Tillage Impacts in India’s Rice Wheat Systems: A Review. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 100, 1–14. [CrossRef] 89. Ladha, J.K.; Kumar, V.; Alam, M.M.; Sharma, S.; Gathala, M.; Chandana, P.; Saharawat, Y.S.; Balasubramanian, V. Integrating Crop and Resource Management Technologies for Enhanced Productivity Profitability, and Sustainability of the Rice-Wheat System in South Asia. In Integrated Crop and Resource Management in the Rice-Wheat System of South Asia; Ladha, J.K., Singh, Y., Erenstein, O., Hardy, B., Eds.; International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, Philippines, 2009; pp. 69–108. 90. Sidhu, H.S.; Manpreet-Singh; Humphreys, E.; Yadvinder-Singh; Balwinder-Singh; Dhillon, S.S.; Blackwell, J.; Bector, V.; Malkeet-Singh; Sarbjeet-Singh. The Happy Seeder Enables Direct Drilling of Wheat into Rice Stubble. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2007, 47, 844–854. [CrossRef] 91. Chakraborty, D.; Garg, R.N.; Tomar, R.K.; Singh, R.; Sharma, S.K.; Singh, R.K.; Trivedi, S.M.; Mittal, R.B.; Sharma, P.K.; Kamble, K.H. Synthetic and Organic Mulching and Nitrogen Effect on Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a Semi-Arid Environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 738–748. [CrossRef] 92. Thakur, T.C. 2003 Crop Residue as Animal Feed: Addressing Resource Conservation Issues in Rice–Wheat Systems of South Asia, a Resource Book; Rice Wheat Consortium for Indo-Gangetic Plains (CIMMYT): El Batán, Mexico, 2003. 93. Hegde, N.G. Forage Resource Development in India. In Souvenir of IGFRI Foundation Day; 2010; Available online: http://www.baif.org.in (accessed on 12 February 2020). 94. Sidhu, B.S.; Beri, V. Experience with Managing Rice Residue in Intensive Rice-Wheat Cropping System in Punjab. In Conservation Agriculture- Status and Prospects; Abrol, I.P., Gupta, R.K., Malik, R.K., Eds.; Center for Arabic Study Abroad: New Delhi, India, 2005; pp. 55–63. 95. Zhang, A.; Bian, R.; Pan, G.; Cui, L.; Hussain, Q.; Li, L.; Zheng, J.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Han, X.; et al. Effects of Biochar Amendment on Soil Quality Crop Yield and Greenhouse Gas Emission in a Chinese Rice Paddy: A Field Study of 2 Consecutive Rice Growing Cycles. Field Crop. Res. 2012, 127, 153–160. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 23 of 24

96. Prabakar, D.; Suvetha K, S.; Manimudi, V.T.; Mathimani, T.; Kumar, G.; Rene, E.R.; Pugazhendhi, A. Pretreatment Technologies for Industrial Effluents: Critical Review on Bioenergy Production and Environmental Concerns. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 165–180. [CrossRef][PubMed] 97. Bhatia, R.K.; Ramadoss, G.; Jain, A.K.; Dhiman, R.K.; Bhatia, S.K.; Bhatt, A.K. Conversion of Waste Biomass into Gaseous Fuel: Present Status and Challenges in India. Bioenergy Res. 2020, 13, 1046–1068. [CrossRef] 98. Naik, S.N.; Goud, V.V.; Rout, P.K.; Dalai, A.K. Production of First and Second Generation Biofuels: A Comprehensive Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 578–597. [CrossRef] 99. Rodriguez, C.; Alaswad, A.; Benyounis, K.Y.; Olabi, A.G. Pretreatment Techniques Used in Biogas Production from Grass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 1193–1204. [CrossRef] 100. Lee, S.Y.; Sankaran, R.; Chew, K.W.; Tan, C.H.; Krishnamoorthy, R.; Chu, D.; Show, P. Waste to Bioenergy: A Review on the Recent Conversion Technologies. BMC Energy 2019, 1, 1–22. [CrossRef] 101. Goyal, H.B.; Seal, D.; Saxena, R.C. Bio-Fuels from Thermochemical Conversion of Renewable Resources: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 504–517. [CrossRef] 102. Ahmad, A.A.; Zawawi, N.A.; Kasim, F.H.; Inayat, A.; Khasri, A. Assessing the Gasification Performance of Biomass: A Review on Biomass Gasification Process Conditions, Optimization and Economic Evaluation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1333–1347. [CrossRef] 103. Watson, J.; Zhang, Y.; Si, B.; Chen, W.T.; de Souza, R. Gasification of Biowaste: A Critical Review and Outlooks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 83, 1–17. [CrossRef] 104. Liu, L.; Huang, Y.; Cao, J.; Liu, C.; Dong, L.; Xu, L.; Zha, J. Experimental Study of Biomass Gasification with Oxygen-Enriched Air in Fluidized Bed Gasifier. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 423–433. [CrossRef][PubMed] 105. Dhyani, V.; Bhaskar, T. A Comprehensive Review on the Pyrolysis of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 695–716. [CrossRef] 106. Jahirul, M.; Rasul, M.; Chowdhury, A.; Ashwath, N. Biofuels Production Through Biomass Pyrolysis—A Technological Review. Energies 2012, 5, 4952–5001. [CrossRef] 107. Dimitriadis, A.; Bezergianni, S. Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Various Biomass and Waste Feedstocks for Biocrude Production: A State of the Art Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 113–125. [CrossRef] 108. Yu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Schideman, L.; Funk, T.; Wang, Z. Distributions of Carbon and Nitrogen in the Products from Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Low-Lipid Microalgae. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 4587. [CrossRef] 109. Cantrell, K.B.; Ducey, T.; Ro, K.S.; Hunt, P.G. Livestock Waste-to-Bioenergy Generation Opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7941–7953. [CrossRef] 110. Bibi, R.; Ahmad, Z.; Imran, M.; Hussain, S.; Ditta, A.; Mahmood, S.; Khalid, A. Algal Bioethanol Production Technology: A Trend Towards Sustainable Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 976–985. [CrossRef] 111. Schwartz, A.; Zeiger, E. Metabolic Energy for Stomatal Opening. Roles of Photophosphorylation and Oxidative Phosphorylation. Planta 1984, 161, 129–136. [CrossRef] 112. Chatzikonstantinou, D.; Tremouli, A.; Papadopoulou, K.; Kanellos, G.; Lampropoulos, I.; Lyberatos, G. Bioelectricity Production from Fermentable Household Waste in a Dual-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell. Waste Manag. Res. 2018, 36, 1037–1042. [CrossRef] 113. Farine, D.R.; O’Connell, D.A.; John Raison, R.; May, B.M.; O’Connor, M.H.; Crawford, D.F.; Herr, A.; Taylor, J.A.; Jovanovic, T.; Campbell, P.K.; et al. An Assessment of Biomass for Bioelectricity and Biofuel, and for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Australia. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4, 148–175. [CrossRef] 114. White, E.M.; Latta, G.; Alig, R.J.; Skog, K.E.; Adams, D.M. Biomass Production from the U.S. Forest and Agriculture Sectors in Support of a Renewable Electricity Standard. Energy Policy 2013, 58, 64–74. [CrossRef] 115. Timsina, J.; Connor, D.J. Productivity and Management of Rice-Wheat Cropping Systems: Issues and Challenges. Field Crop. Res. 2001, 69, 93–132. [CrossRef] 116. Ladha, J.K.; Dawe, D.; Pathak, H.; Padre, A.T.; Yadav, R.L.; Singh, B.; Singh, Y.; Singh, Y.; Singh, P.; Kundu, A.L.; et al. How Extensive Are Yield Declines in Long-Term Rice-Wheat Experiments in Asia? Field Crop. Res. 2003, 81, 159–180. [CrossRef] 117. Busari, M.A.; Kukal, S.S.; Kaur, A.; Bhatt, R.; Dulazi, A.A. Conservation Tillage Impacts on Soil, Crop and the Environment. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2015, 3, 119–129. [CrossRef] 118. Bhatt, R.; Kukal, S.S.; Busari, M.A.; Arora, S.; Yadav, M. Sustainability Issues on Rice–Wheat Cropping System. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016, 4, 64–74. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808 24 of 24

119. Jagir, S.S.; Bijay-Singh, K.K.; Kuldip, K. Managing Crop Residues in the Rice-Wheat System of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. In ASA Special Publications; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 173–195. 120. Kukal, S.S.; Aggarwal, G.C. Puddling Depth and Intensity Effects in Rice-Wheat System on a Sandy Loam Soil II. Water Use and Crop Performance. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 74, 37–45. [CrossRef] 121. Hobbs, P.R. Sustainability of Rice-Wheat Production Systems in Asia. Rapa Publ. 1997, 49, 279–280. [CrossRef] 122. Thind, H.S.; Sharma, S.; Yadvinder Singh, S.H.S.; Sidhu, H.S. Rice–Wheat Productivity and Profitability with Residue, Tillage and Green Manure Management. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2019, 113, 113–125. [CrossRef] 123. Singh, Y.; Sidhu, H.S. Management of Cereal Crop Residues for Sustainable Rice-Wheat Production System in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 2014, 80, 95–114. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).